2018-09-17

VacanciesThe Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House that vacancies have occurred in the representation, namely: Mr. Thomas Mulcair, member for the electoral district of Outremont, by resignation effective Friday, August 3, 2018.
Mr. Kennedy Stewart, member for the electoral district of Burnaby South, resigned effective Friday, September 14, 2018.
Pursuant to subsection 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed warrants to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of writs for the election of members to fill these vacancies.
Bill S-234 and Motion No. 191The Speaker: As hon. members know, by virtue of their office, ministers and parliamentary secretaries are not eligible to propose items for consideration under private members' business. The order of precedence currently includes one motion and one Senate bill standing in the name of members who were recently appointed to the position of minister or parliamentary secretary: Motion No. 191 and Bill S-234, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate).
Therefore, in accordance with past practice, and under the authority granted to me by Standing Order 94(1), I am ordering that the item in the name of the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Motion No. 191, be withdrawn from the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
As for Bill S-234, which is awaiting debate at second reading, it is now without an eligible sponsor. The principle expressed at pages 558 and 1,138 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, provides that bills remain on the order of precedence since they are in the possession of the House, and that only the House can take a further decision on them. If no action is taken by the House at the appropriate time, this item will be dropped from the Order Paper, pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(c).
I thank members for their attention.
Child Health Protection ActMr. Doug Eyolfson (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, Lib.): moved that Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibiting food and beverage marketing directed at children), be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to stand here today as a sponsor of Bill S-228, the child health protection act, at its third and final reading in Parliament. 
I would like to begin by thanking my fellow colleagues on the Standing Committee on Health for their thoughtful review of the legislation. It was an honour to work with all of them and I look forward to continuing to work together on issues affecting Canadians.
Childhood obesity is an epidemic of such a magnitude that it is a matter of national concern. Today, one in three Canadian children is either overweight or obese. We know that obesity is linked to chronic conditions and illnesses, such as high cholesterol, high blood pressure, sleep apnea, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke and some cancers, and its effects are compounded if the onset is premature. 
During my career as a physician, I noticed more of my patients were overweight or obese and I was seeing instances of heart disease and type 2 diabetes in younger and younger people. According to the World Obesity Federation, if current trends continue, more than 10 million adults in Canada will be obese by 2025 and treating health problems caused by obesity will cost Canada nearly $34 billion per year.
In its final report presented on January 25, 2016, the World Health Organization's Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity found that there is unequivocal evidence that the marketing of unhealthy foods and sugar-sweetened beverages has a negative impact on childhood obesity. The report recommended that any attempt to tackle childhood obesity should include a reduction in the exposure of children to marketing. This bill takes concrete steps to address this public health issue by eliminating the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages to children.
During the committee stage of this bill, I introduced two consequential amendments to the legislation. The first was to alter the definition of a child from 17 years of age to 13 years of age. During Health Canada's consultation with stakeholders, it became clear that any regime built on restrictions aimed at older teenagers would be subjected to considerable legal risks associated with a restriction on freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Currently, there is a strong precedent for defining a child as under 13 in the context of advertising restrictions in Quebec and the province has withstood a charter challenge that was fully upheld at the Supreme Court of Canada.
Recognizing there is evidence concerning the vulnerability of teenagers to marketing, as well as the experience in Quebec where industry shifted marketing efforts to teenagers when restrictions were imposed on younger children, I moved a second amendment that requires Parliament to conduct a mandatory review of the legislation, with a focus on the definition of children within five years of the act coming into force. Through the parliamentary review of the legislation, the government would also be obliged to report publicly on compliance with the bill and on progress toward our common goal of healthier children of all ages. This work would ensure that, if necessary, we will have the data needed to support a broadening of restrictions at a future date. 
During this bill's second reading and committee stage, there were also questions regarding the regulations that would be established. Recently, Health Canada released the document, “Restricting Marketing of Unhealthy Food and Beverages to Children: An Update on Proposed Regulations”. In this document, Health Canada stated that the new regulations would define “unhealthy” food, set out factors to determine if an advertisement is directed at children and set out exemptions to the prohibition, such as for children's sports sponsorship. 
There has been much discussion as to what qualifies as unhealthy foods and beverages. As such, Health Canada is considering a model to define “unhealthy” food as foods having a front-of-package symbol, as proposed in draft regulations, or exceeding the threshold for the nutrient content claims, such as low in sodium and salt, low in saturated fatty acids and/or low in sugars. The Specific Nutrient Content Claim Requirements, such as the ones previously listed, are used by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to quantify food claims made by manufacturers. I encourage my colleagues to review the Specific Nutrient Content Claim Requirements for salt, sodium, saturated fatty acids and Health Canada's proposed requirements for sugars, for the exact quantities under the proposed regulations and for what amounts of sodium, fats and sugars would qualify a food or beverage as being unhealthy. 
With regard to the factors to determine if an advertisement is directed at children, we need to consider that the impact of marketing to children is a result of both exposure to unhealthy food ads through settings and media channels and the power of the marketing techniques used. 
As such, the proposed approach addresses both by considering three primary elements: settings, media channels and advertising techniques. Settings would include places, events or activities, and could include day cares, schools and children's clubs, as well as children's concerts and festivals, among others. 
Health Canada would determine certain factors related to the settings, such as whether the setting is one where children are generally or frequently in attendance, and the nature and purpose of the event or activity determining whether unhealthy food advertising is child-directed.
Under the proposed regulations, marketing to children would be prohibited in child-directed settings. Where the audience has both adults and children, the marketing of unhealthy foods would be restricted only if the advertisement itself is found to have child appeal and would be prohibited if the characteristics of the ad, such as colour, theme and/or language, were clearly directed at children.
Children are also exposed to advertising through a variety of media channels, including digital applications, Internet, television, films and print. Health Canada is currently exploring the use of factors such as the nature and purpose of the media, whether it was intended or designed for children and whether children constitute a significant portion of the audience when determining whether unhealthy food advertising is child-directed.
With regards to the audience portion, Health Canada is considering a prohibition of marketing to children when the proportion of children in the viewing audience is over 15%. For media channels where the proportion of children in the viewing audience is less than 15%, the marketing of unhealthy food will be restricted only if the advertisement is found to have clear child appeal. With regards to determining advertising techniques with child appeal, it must be understood that a wide range of powerful techniques are used to advertise foods to children. Therefore, Health Canada will need to determine whether the design, technique or characteristic of the advertisement target will influence or appeal to children. For example, an ad for confectionery treats depicting child-appealing elements such as cartoon images and/or children's toys would be prohibited.
Over the past several months, there have been concerns that there could be a negative impact on access to community sports if sponsorships were prohibited. In its proposed regulations, Health Canada will exempt children's sport sponsorships to address these concerns, with only specific techniques designed to appeal to children under 13, such as mascots or product giveaways, being prohibited.
Marketing to children would be allowed for community sports teams, sporting events, sporting leagues and associations, and individual child athletes. For example, in the context of a sporting event where a company is supplying sports jerseys to the team, its logo can appear on the sports jerseys. 
Working on this legislation has been a long yet rewarding process. When I was practising medicine, I would too often treat patients suffering from the numerous medical complications due to obesity. While I am not in the emergency room to treat patients suffering from these illnesses now, I am here, in the House of Commons, as a representative of my community, to address the preventable issues that are hurting our society and burdening our health care system.
We now have an opportunity to address childhood obesity, which should frankly be a non-partisan issue. That is why I am calling upon all members of this House to show their support and prove we are united in fighting this epidemic.
Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill S-228, the Minister of Health stood in the House and promised that sports scholarship programs would be exempt from this legislation in order to ensure that activities promoting healthy lifestyles and choices would continue.
I brought to committee an amendment mapping exactly what the minister had committed to and it was rejected. Could the member comment on why the Liberals did not keep their promise?
Doug Eyolfson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her valuable help on the health committee in reviewing this bill.
The issue was clarified, in that the Minister of Health agreed that under regulations through Health Canada, sports sponsorship would not be affected. One of the reasons to keep this in Health Canada regulations as opposed to the actual bill was that this would allow Health Canada to respond to any changes in industry practices in a judicious, quicker manner than bringing it back to the House for amendments.
Therefore, the minister's promise was kept by agreeing in the regulations that sports sponsorship will not be affected.
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for introducing this important bill because we do need to fight childhood obesity. My NDP colleagues and I are pleased to support this bill.
As my colleague pointed out, Quebec was the first to address advertising aimed at children. Quebec's law applies to children 13 years of age and under. I have concerns about the fact that we are considering applying this legislation to people 17 years of age and under. As my colleague said, ads target teenagers too, but as Canadian restaurant owners told us, teenagers are also employees. That means they are exposed to advertising at work in the restaurant and food service industry. The issue for me here is setting the age at 17 and under versus 13 and under.
Doug Eyolfson: Mr. Speaker, it was a matter of debate whether to leave the definition of children as those aged 17 and under or 13 and under. There was an extensive review by legal staff and of the precedent set in Quebec. It was feared that if the definition of child were of those under the age of 17, there would be a significant chance of the entire bill being brought down in a legal challenge. 
By the precedent set in Quebec, it was agreed that the bill in this form would withstand a charter challenge, and as a safety measure, we have put in the mandatory five-year review to address if companies are shifting their marketing to undermine the effectiveness of the bill.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of my colleague and friend from Winnipeg on this very important matter. The general acceptance of the legislation has been very encouraging. People recognize that our young people do need to have legislation of this nature. It is in the long-term best interests of their health, and if it is in young people's best interests, then it is in society's best interests as a whole. Could the member provide his thoughts on why this is important legislation for our young people?
Doug Eyolfson: Mr. Speaker, this is a public health matter. Obesity is rising at an alarming rate and the patterns leading to obesity often start in childhood. A number of years ago before I was in government and practising medicine, I lobbied very heavily for anti-smoking legislation. Among the criticisms made was that doing so was all well and good, but why was I not also attacking obesity, which is actually a bigger problem? This is one of the first valuable steps to address this at a very early stage when this is preventative rather than treatment-based, and should improve health and help to take the burden off our already overburdened health care system.
Marilyn Gladu: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you had a good summer. I certainly did.
I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-228, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act by prohibiting food and beverage marketing directed at children.
I would like to begin by thanking many individuals and groups for their ongoing efforts on this bill. First, I would like to thank Senator Nancy Greene Raine, now retired, for her years of service and her ongoing commitment to the health and well-being of Canadians, particularly the health of children. I would also like to thank members from all parties and the many witnesses for their passion and expertise.
Basically, Bill S-228 seeks to prohibit food and beverage marketing directed at persons under the age of 13. The bill's introduction in the House is rather timely because its objective can be found in the Minister of Health's mandate letter. Although this bill is well intentioned and seeks to combat childhood obesity, many stakeholders and witnesses expressed their concerns about the scope of the bill and its potential unintended consequences.
Similar legislation already exists in Quebec, which is often cited as an example. Quebec passed legislation in 1980 to ban advertising aimed at children aged 13 and under. To be clear, while it is true that Quebec has one of the lowest obesity rates in Canada, that is not necessarily a consequence of the ban on advertising targeting young people.
At a committee meeting, I asked witnesses from Quebec's Weight Coalition whether the obesity rate went down after Quebec passed the legislation. One witness replied as follows:
 The Quebec act, which dates from 1980, was not passed to reduce obesity, but for ethical reasons and because of the vulnerability issues involving all forms of advertising. In terms of data on obesity, we were unfortunately unable to measure them in the past. 
This comparison was repeated over and over again during consideration of the bill. However, someone who is rarely quoted is Ronald Lund, who appeared before the committee and told us that Quebec's obesity rate is quite similar to that of the rest of the country.
He said, “In fact, in terms of how fast it exploded and where it is today, the rates of obesity and overweight[edness] in Quebec are basically not statistically different from the rest of Canada.” 
I think it is off the website now, but one can still find the link on Quebec's Ministry of Health's own website. It talks about the great increase since 1978 and adds that the good news is that rates there are not significantly different from those in the rest of Canada. Despite a homegrown test, the obesity rates in Quebec are not dramatically different.
Therefore, when we approach Bill S-228 and talk about the legislation, I am just not sure that it is going to work, though I am firmly behind its premise that we want to reduce obesity in children, as we know that childhood obesity is a predeterminate of very chronic disease as they get older. 
Certainly, I think there are some problems with the bill, and I am going to address several of those.
First, there was an allusion to the definition of healthy food not being nailed down. At committee we talked about making the definition potentially the same as for front-of-pack labelling, where things high in salt, sugar, or saturated fats would be considered unhealthy. However, that could not be agreed upon, and there is currently no agreement about the definition.
The Liberal government is content to leave that to the regulations, but I think we can see the same problem with regulations that Health Canada is having when considering the Canada food guide and front-of-pack labelling. For example, there are situations where apple strudel would be considered healthy but cheese would not be. Therefore, I really think that not having a definition of healthy food is a weakness in this proposed legislation.
Second, if we are trying to make sure that children under the age of 13 are not exposed to the advertising of whatever we determine unhealthy food to be, the enforcement of that is going to be extremely difficult. For example, as per the conversations we had, does that mean television ads after nine o'clock at night could potentially be allowed to advertise some of these things? The problem is that there are parents who are not parenting well or are allowing their children to stay up past nine o'clock, and so we cannot really be sure at any point in time that we would not be targeting that audience. What about signs? What about billboards? I mean, there would not really be an opportunity to enforce this without a huge number of people basically policing all forms of media. 
We know that things put in place by the Liberal government have not been well enforced and we expect to see further ones. For example, with the forthcoming marijuana legislation, clearly there was an effort made to restrict advertising to make sure that it did not appear to be cool to smoke marijuana. However, the government did nothing with enforcement with regard to the huge number of T-shirts and other paraphernalia that exist. The Senate brought an amendments, which were not accepted. Again, there is no enforcement. With respect to Bill S-5, the proposed tobacco legislation, we know that enforcement activity is needed when people who are not authorized to produce and distribute are doing it. However, the 60% cigarette contraband rate in Ontario, for example, and I think 30% or 40% across the country, shows a lack of enforcement. Therefore, I really think that this proposed piece of legislation would definitely have difficulty with enforcement. 
Also, do we really need to have the government telling us what we can and cannot eat? I am all about personal freedom and individual accountability. When I was growing up, we had all the sugared cereals. We had Tony the Tiger, Froot Loops, Lucky Charms, Alpha-Bits, and I consumed all of those, along with toast dipped in maple syrup. My mother made us bologna sandwiches. However, I can tell members that there was not a lot of obesity, because we were all outside running around and playing. Therefore, if the government really wants to address obesity, I think the call to action should be to get young people active again. When I was growing up, there was a federal program in place called ParticipACTION, which was designed to get people out and running around. I certainly think that would be more effective in achieving results. 
Members can see from my earlier testimony that many people from Quebec are saying that the rates there are not different from those in the rest of Canada. Therefore, this legislation is not going to have the impact we would want it to have. 
As well, the senator who introduced this proposed legislation is a multiple Olympic champion. She was fit, and even in her senior years she was driving fitness activities here on the Hill. However, I would point out that she did choose in her career to advertise Mars bars, and I do not think anyone thought it was a problem for an athlete to do that. However, she had the personal freedom to choose that, and now she wants to remove that personal freedom from other athletes who may choose to do that. I certainly am able to exercise, eat occasionally at McDonald's, and eat chips from time to time. It is a balance. I think it is a question of moderation. 
Therefore, for all of the reasons I have cited, including the difficulties in enforcing the proposed legislation, the fact that I do not believe the legislation would work, and the government's interference where I believe there should be personal freedom, individual accountability, and good parenting, I will not be supporting this legislation.
Brigitte Sansoucy: Mr. Speaker, as the critic for families, children and social development, I am pleased to rise in the House today to support Bill S-228 and to speak about this issue that is so important for the health of our young people.
According to Ms. Francine Forget-Marin, director of health promotion and research at the Heart and Stroke Foundation, “children are very vulnerable to advertising because they cannot distinguish between good food and bad.... We are now seeing trademarks being used in video games and advertising permeating social media.” This statement precisely and clearly identifies the challenge that this bill addresses. The situation is worrisome and requires that we take action. 
Among industrialized countries, Canada ranks sixth for the highest obesity rates for children. The childhood obesity rate in Canada has almost tripled in the past 30 years, according to the 2016 study by the Senate committee. Obesity leads to health problems such as hypertension, Type 2 diabetes, bone and joint problems, and mental health issues such as low self-esteem, poor body image, bullying, depression, and so forth—all of which are affecting younger and younger people.
The annual economic burden of obesity is reported to be in the billions of dollars. However, according to the senate committee's 2016 study, obesity costs Canada between $4.6 billion and $7.1 billion annually in health care and lost productivity. The use of captivating advertisements that encourage our children to consume unhealthy food and beverages contribute to the obesity problem.
The World Health Organization found that the marketing of unhealthy foods was one of the main risk factors for obesity, especially since children are much more easily swayed by advertising than adults. Children who are more exposed to advertising have a tendency to ask for products that feature a character or logo they recognize. Research by the Heart and Stroke Foundation found that kids see more than 25 million food and beverage ads a year on their favourite websites. These figures are as impressive as they are troubling. 
We also know that childhood obesity does not disappear as soon as a child becomes an adult. Children with weight problems are more likely to experience weight problems throughout their adult lives. This is a long-term problem that requires a long-term solution.
That is what Bill S-228 does. It eliminates the problem at the source by prohibiting certain types of marketing. That is why I think Bill S-228 is necessary.
I would like to take this opportunity to talk about what people in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot are doing to fight obesity. I am thinking here of the Heart and Stroke Foundation volunteers in Montérégie. I would like to commend Linda Jodoin, Stéphane Martin, Jérémy Ménard, and others for the work they do to help our community. These volunteers are helping to save lives by working to fight heart disease and stroke. I thank them once again for their contributions and for the incredible work they do to help people in our community.
As an MP from Quebec, I also want to mention how proud I am of my province, which is the only one that already has legislation in place in this regard. The Quebec Consumer Protection Act, which has been in effect since 1980, has had a very positive impact on the health of our children. According to a 2011 study, Quebec has the lowest rate of obesity among children aged 6 to 11, and the highest consumption of fruits and vegetables. This shows how important and useful legislation is. I would therefore like to once again commend Quebec for being a leader on this.
The NDP has always cared about this issue. In 2012, my extraordinary colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby introduced Bill C-430.
The bill sought to amend the Competition Act and the Food and Drugs Act to expressly restrict advertising and promotion, for commercial purposes, of products, food, drugs, cosmetics, or devices directly to children under 13 years of age.
The NDP supports this bill because we believe in reducing children's exposure to ads promoting unhealthy food and beverages that can cause obesity and mental or physical health problems.
The two main factors linked to obesity are eating habits and physical activity. By banning the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages to children, Bill S-228 tackles the issue of eating habits in a fundamental way, because it forces all of Canadian society to rethink what we teach our children about food.
As we have seen, ads targeting children influence not only their eating preferences and behaviours, but also their nutrition knowledge. As a result, ads play an active role in teaching children about food.
This bill would also close certain loopholes in the 1980 Quebec act that inspired it. That is another reason I support it.
Under Quebec law, kids can still see packaging, storefront advertising, and products on supermarket shelves. When I discussed this with people from Quebec's Weight Coalition, they told me that exceptions to the legislation are an ongoing problem.
This bill would ban food and beverage marketing directed at children, and that includes how products are labelled and packaged, of course. 
By supporting this bill, we are also signalling to parents that we understand their concerns. We support them because we know that navigating the aggressive marketing techniques we have been talking about alone is not easy. 
Nevertheless, as a New Democrat, I think we have to respect provincial jurisdiction. This bill has to be consistent with and informed by the Quebec law.
This bill must not result in a total ban on food and beverage advertising to children under 17 years of age. It needs to be consistent with Quebec's legislation, which defines children as being 13 years of age or under.
The restaurant and food services sectors are affected by this bill, and they feel the same way we do. They support the idea of strengthening measures to prevent obesity in children under 13. At the same time, however, they think it is unfortunate that the age associated with the term “child” in this bill is 17, whereas the age limit in Quebec's act is 13.
I also want to make sure that we all understand the legal and economic ramifications of this bill before we pass it. I am not convinced that the views of the affected sectors, such as the restaurant and food services sectors, were adequately taken into consideration in committee.
Restaurants Canada told us that Health Canada's definition of a healthy food is too restrictive. It excludes any food that provides less than 5% or 15% of the daily value of saturated fat, sugar, and sodium.
In conclusion, I believe that by supporting this bill, we are making the right choice. If we take action today to help our children eat better, we can create the healthier adults of tomorrow and guarantee a healthier society. The example of Quebec, which tackled this issue successfully almost 30 years ago, should encourage the federal government to take this path for the sake of our constituents' health and well-being.
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill  S-228, the child health protection act, legislation that, if passed, would restrict the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages to children under the age of 13. Our government commends the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley for sponsoring this important bill in the House of Commons. We also commend former Senator Greene-Raine for introducing the bill in the other place, and for her tireless efforts to support healthy choices for Canadian children. 
More than at any time in our history, children are being exposed to a steady stream of advertisements for unhealthy foods and beverages. It goes without saying that the advertising of these products has a significant influence on children when they make consumption choices and purchase requests.
Children are eating fewer fruits and vegetables than recommended, while their diets often exceed the recommended amounts of sugars, salt, and saturated fat.
It will come as no surprise that one in three Canadian children are overweight or obese. We know that the consumption of unhealthy foods early in life is linked to a higher risk of health problems later in life, such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease. It is a worrisome reality that these diseases are now starting to become more common in children. We cannot allow this trend to persist. This is an issue that requires national leadership. 
The evidence is clear. The World Health Organization has identified the marketing of unhealthy foods to children as a major contributor to childhood obesity. In Canada, on a daily basis, children are exposed to advertisements designed to appeal to them for food and beverages high in sugar, salt, and saturated fats. These advertisements go well beyond the traditional print, radio, and TV ads of the past. In fact, a recent analysis concluded that 90% of the millions of online food and beverage ads that Canadian children see every year are for unhealthy products.
What I would like to stress is that these advertisements are used for a reason. They are used because they work. They influence our children when they are making choices of what foods to eat, or what foods to ask their parents to buy. Taking action today on restricting the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages provides us with an opportunity to ensure our children have a better chance at a healthy start in life, one that is based on a foundation of healthy eating choices. That is why our government strongly supports the bill, and is committed to seeing it passed and brought into force. 
The process to develop the bill included a great deal of thoughtful study and engagement with all affected parties. That is why, after careful consideration, government members presented legislative amendments to the Standing Committee on Health, where they were adopted. These amendments included changing the definition of children to under 13 years old, for the purposes of the act.
There is precedent, under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act for defining a child as under 13, in the context of restricting advertising. The Quebec legislation was subject to a challenge under the charter, at the end of which the Supreme Court fully upheld Quebec's restrictions on advertising to children. However, we also know that teenagers are often targeted by the advertising of unhealthy foods and beverages because of their increased independence, access to their own money, and susceptibility to peer influence. 
Taking these considerations into account, government members introduced an additional amendment to require Parliament to conduct a mandatory review of the legislation within five years of the act's coming into force, with a particular focus on its definition of children. This review would serve to monitor the effectiveness of the restrictions, determine if new forms of advertising are affecting children and assess whether there was an increase in advertising targeted to adolescents aged 13 to 17 years. 
At the Standing Committee on Health, we heard some concerns that the bill might have unintentional consequences related to children's involvement in sports. I want to be clear that our government is committed to recognizing children's sports as a key element of supporting an active lifestyle. Community sporting activities provide social and health benefits to children. Taking these benefits into account, our government is committed to exempting children's sport sponsorships from the restrictions through regulations. 
The development of this regulatory exemption will be informed by the Quebec Consumer Protection Act, with consideration given to prohibiting specific advertising practices targeted to children under 13, such as unhealthy food giveaways at children's community sporting events. Those are the types of things that we will be looking for.
The amended bill along with the regulatory exemption will ensure that our approach achieves the best health outcome for children. Our government will not let up on the fight to reduce obesity and chronic disease. Restricting the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages is a key part of our government's healthy eating strategy, a multi-faceted approach aimed at improving the food environment and giving Canadians the tools to make healthier choices. Government action aimed at reducing chronic disease over the years has taught us a valuable lesson that no single action, not one alone, is a silver bullet, but a suite of actions complemented by effective public education can turn the tide.
We cannot underestimate the influence of these advertisements nor can we sit idly by and watch the health of children decline due to poor eating habits. That is why I am encouraging all sides of the House to support this bill. Together we can advance this important piece of legislation that will protect the health of Canadian children and make the healthy choice the easy choice now and for future generations of Canadians.
Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see you again today as Parliament resumes. I hope that all my colleagues are pleased to be back, as am I. It is a beautiful day and a good time to return to Ottawa to engage with our colleagues.
I would like to thank the Hon. Nancy Greene for introducing this bill in the other chamber, and I congratulate her on her exceptional career. She has been a role model for all Canadians, especially young people. I really wanted to pay her this small tribute.
Child obesity is very costly for Canadians. We must continually improve our children's quality of life. In fact, several studies show that the costs associated with obesity are very high. In March 2016, when testifying before a committee in the other chamber, Ms. Laurie Twells, associate professor at the Faculty of Medicine of Memorial University of Newfoundland, stated that the financial burden of the direct cost of health care and the indirect cost of lost productivity due to obesity in Canada is estimated to be between $4.6 billion and $7.1 billion a year. Problems associated with obesity cost our society between $4.6 billion and $7.1 billion every year.
I think everyone here in the House agrees that we need to tackle this major problem. We need to do better for future generations. This brings me to Bill S-228, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, which proposes a ban on food and beverage marketing directed at children. In my view, this bill unfortunately does nothing to really eliminate the problem of childhood obesity. Canadians' lifestyles have a considerable impact on their health. I think we should have started by addressing the lifestyles of young Canadians.
Speaking of which, I am pleased to remind the House that the previous Conservative government had introduced a tax credit to increase Canadian families' participation in sports. Getting Canadians moving is the best way to really bring down obesity rates. The tax credit brought forward by the Harper government focused on athletic, cultural, and social development to ensure that Canadians, even from a very young age, adopt and maintain a healthy lifestyle. That was real action. The idea was to encourage parents to get their kids to exercise by helping them pay for those activities. Enrolling your kids in sports like hockey and gymnastics can often be very expensive. My daughters were in gymnastics and I know from experience that a year of gymnastics for a little girl is very expensive, but at the end of the year, we received a tax credit that allowed both of our daughters, and not just one, to do gymnastics. The entire family was encouraged to exercise.
Unfortunately, one of the first things this government did was abolish the children's fitness tax credit. This credit represented a real solution to the obesity problem. I believe that hundreds, or even thousands, of children benefited from this credit and were able to participate in sports. The Liberal government chose to go after advertising instead of Canadians' lifestyles. This shows, yet again, that the Liberal government does not understand life in Canada's regions. Canadian families deserve better. The government could be depriving many organizations, all across Canada, of the money they use to run activities that get kids moving. I will explain. Yesterday Thetford Mines held its half marathon. One thousand people participated, including seniors, who were making a return to physical exercise, and young families with small children, who were exercising and decided to participate in the Thetford Mines half marathon. This means that the participants had been exercising and running with their families. These are wonderful family activities.
Thetford Mines was able to organize a half marathon because we have financial partners, which include Oasis juice, Yum Yum Chips, and Krispy Kernels. Unfortunately, under a Health Canada definition that has yet to be released, these companies could be seen as producers of unhealthy foods. I will come back to that. I think there is a problem when it comes to Health Canada defining unhealthy foods. Bill S-228 gives Health Canada the latitude to determine which foods are healthy and which are not. That is a real problem.
A number of companies promote physical activity by sponsoring sports organizations. If the Liberal government moves forward with this bill as it now stands, all of those companies would be prohibited from continuing their involvement in various communities. We proposed an amendment to exempt these companies from the advertising ban, particularly when they sponsor sporting events. Take for example Tim Hortons and McDonald's, which have supported Canada's Olympic athletes for a long time now. It is important to recognize that. However, no one on the other side of the House would support the amendment introduced by my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton, who does excellent work on the Standing Committee on Health. 
I am very concerned about leaving it up to Health Canada to decide which foods are healthy and which are not, because this issue is closely connected to an agriculture-related issue I have been working on, namely front-of-package nutrition labelling. Health Canada is currently making decisions about what is and is not good for people's health instead of letting people decide that for themselves. I have some straightforward questions. 
Is orange juice healthy? Is yogurt healthy? Is cheese healthy? I am sure Canadians encourage their kids to drink orange juice every morning and eat yummy yogurt. Health Canada, however, says that the front of these products' packaging should be labelled to show that they contain too much fat or sugar, for example. That is what Health Canada is looking at.
Will cheese makers have to stop running ads aimed at children? Will companies that make all-natural juices, such as orange juice, have to stop running ads aimed at children? I predict that, left to its own devices, Health Canada will prohibit such companies from advertising their healthy products to children because it seems disinclined to take all the science into account. The department is making decisions based on public opinion and forcing food manufacturers to label some products that have not been scientifically proven to be harmful.
The fat in yogurt is not necessarily unhealthy. People need to consume certain amounts of certain kinds of fat. That is good for our health. Even so, Health Canada has decided to put big warnings on these products telling people they are dangerous. Under Bill S-228, those same people will decide which foods are unhealthy. Things do not look good for dairy producers, cheese makers, and anyone who grows fruit that gets made into juice. That is how this is shaping up.
Bill S-228 will not solve the problem of obesity. Furthermore, it gives Health Canada powers that are much too broad, particularly regarding the definitions of what is healthy and what is unhealthy, and demands no accountability. Health Canada will make all the decisions, and in two years' time, everything will be prohibited. This is nonsense. It is time to take a step back so we can really understand what needs to be done to ensure that Canada's youth does not have to face the scourge of obesity. We need to encourage physical activity by making it easier for families to access physical education programs and encouraging youth to practice their sport. The tax credit we introduced in that regard was excellent and suited all families. 
If we really want to eliminate obesity, we need to give Canadian families the means to purchase healthy food at all times. Above all, we need to allow them to decide for themselves what is healthy and unhealthy. We already allow Canadians aged 13 to 17 to do all kinds of things. They can drive a car for example. The older kids get, the more rights they have, but now the government wants to tell kids under 18 that they cannot decide for themselves what is healthy and what is unhealthy. Instead of prohibiting kids from seeing something, we should be educating them so they can make healthy decisions throughout their lives.
We are prepared to work with the government to find solutions. This is why we proposed an amendment to exempt sponsors of sporting events and other similar activities from the application of this bill. This would guarantee the survival of festivals, half marathons, and other organizations. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected outright.
If the government truly cared about Canadians' health, it would have listened to us and surely would not have allowed the legalization of marijuana. Talk about being at odds with healthy living. The Liberals legalized a product known for being harmful.
Doug Eyolfson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank members for engaging in this debate. I think some very valid points have been brought up by all speakers.
I will make this remark very brief. I would simply say that we have looked at all the data and all the different options available and we are convinced through past precedent and current practice that this will be a bill that will improve the health of many Canadians.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Deputy Speaker: It being 11:58 a.m., the House will stand suspended until 12:00 p.m.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:58 a.m.)
[Stage Direction]
(The House resumed at 12:00 p.m.)
Bruce Stanton:  

Government Orders
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation ActHon. Jim Carr (Minister of International Trade Diversification, Lib.): moved that Bill C-79, an act to implement the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, it is with enthusiasm and optimism that I rise in the House today to speak about our government's plan to diversify Canada's trade. Specifically, I will speak about Bill C-79, the legislation before members today to implement the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, otherwise known as the CPTPP.
This is the first government bill to be debated in the fall sitting. That is a statement in itself and I intend to speak to that too. It reflects the importance we attach to swift ratification of the new CPTPP so that our farmers, ranchers, entrepreneurs and workers from across the country can get down to the business of tapping new markets and bringing brand Canada to more corners of the world.
There has never been a better time for Canadians to diversify. As a trading nation we need to add to our list of customers and to the roster of our innovative, hard-working, entrepreneurial and ambitious sellers. 
Today I am meeting with my counterpart from the United Kingdom. In the last two weeks I was in Israel, Thailand and Singapore. After the United States withdrew, Canada took the lead in March 2017, relaunching stalled talks for the old TPP and then working tirelessly to secure a deal that reflected not just the ambitions of the few but the dreams of the many.
This effort was in large part about driving real changes for the middle class who have not always seen their interests reflected in agreements. We changed the terms of trade protecting our intellectual property, our unique culture and we expanded access to a market of 500 million consumers covering 13% of global GDP.
The new CPTPP was renegotiated with a view to looking beyond the few current large exporters to those unaccustomed or ready for new markets, because while competition is a very healthy thing, if workers feel that their quality work going out the front door is undermined by weaker standards of work coming through the back door, support for trade suffers.
Bill C-79 is of critical importance to the Canadian economy. It is vital particularly for our agricultural sectors that are now, even as I speak, reaping the harvests that will soon be shipped to new markets. As we have said from the outset, Canada will be among the first six countries to ratify as long as the House and the other place recognize the opportunity this deal brings to countless hard-working Canadians and move swiftly to pass the bill.
Bill C-79 brings forward all legislative instruments required to ratify and implement the agreement. Other regulatory changes will also be required for Canada to ratify and that regulatory process will follow royal assent of the bill. This is not just a new trade agreement for Canada. This is a signal to the world that trade matters, that rules matter and we will not be drawn into the world of protectionism. This bill is a statement that we will seek out every opportunity and negotiate terms that benefit the middle class and those working hard to join it.
The bill also speaks directly to Canada's diversification imperative. As a middle power, we cannot afford the status quo and we cannot afford to wait for the world to come to us. Our competitiveness depends on opening more markets and making those markets more accessible particularly for small and medium-sized businesses.
On Friday we will celebrate another landmark trade agreement secured under this government, the first anniversary of the trade agreement with Europe, CETA. In just one year, business is booming. Last week we learned container traffic at the port of Montreal is already up year on year 20%. That is 20% more traffic in the made-in-Canada goods Canadians produce each and every day. 
In addition to trans-Atlantic trade, we are expanding preferential access across our hemisphere moving forward on a free trade agreement our government initiated with Mercosur, including Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay and enhanced membership with the Pacific alliance, including Mexico, Peru, Chile and Colombia. With the new CPTPP, we extend our reach to the Pacific with an eye to the long term. We are, after all, a Pacific nation.
That is why reorienting and renewing what is now the CPTPP is so critical for us. Asia matters to Canada. Asia is home to the world's fastest-growing middle class. By 2030, nearly two-thirds of the world's middle class, estimated to be 3.5 billion people, will call Asia home. The CPTPP is a cornerstone for Canada's greater engagement with Asia-Pacific countries and solidly anchors Canada's place in the Asian market.
There are 10 new markets on offer: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. That is a trading bloc representing close to 500 million people and 13.5% of global GDP. 
Under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, consumers will benefit from lower prices and greater selection. Workers will also benefit from the creation of more good-quality jobs in all export sectors across Canada.
The CPTPP translates to benefits for farmers and growers, fisher men and women, lumber jacks and jills, Bay Street and Main Street, miners and chemists, manufacturers and service providers. The CPTPP will also level the playing field for Canadian exporters staying even with competitors that already have preferential access to countries like Japan, the world's third largest economy. Last year our bilateral trade with Japan reached $29 billion; just imagine next year. The opportunities are enormous.
For example, the quality and beauty of Canadian wood is world renowned. In Japan, indeed throughout the Asia-Pacific region, the environmental and structural benefits of wooden construction are being embraced, including plans for a 1,048-foot wooden skyscraper. The home for the world's current tallest wooden building is here in Canada, a residential structure at the University of British Columbia. Incidentally, as Canada's minister of natural resources, I had the pleasure of cutting the ribbon on that project. 
With the advent of CPTPP, market opportunities for Canada's forest products sector are inviting and impressive. Canadian high-tech companies like OpenText have been battling and succeeding in the ultra-competitive Asian markets for decades. The IP protections secured in the CPTPP will protect the investments these companies have made in Canada and allow them to compete and win in Asia.
We consulted extensively with Canadians for more than two years to get the agreement right. We fought hard on their behalf to make important changes, suspensions to certain articles or side letters with the full force of international law in areas such as intellectual property, investor-state dispute settlement, culture and autos. 
The CPTPP also includes many other significant achievements. For example, financial service providers will benefit from enhanced investment protection and preferential access, including in Malaysia and Vietnam where commitments go far beyond what either country has offered in any FTA.
Through the government procurement chapter, Canadian businesses will be able to access open and fair procurement in all CPTPP markets. CPTPP parties will eliminate tariffs on over 95% of tariff lines, covering 99% of current Canadian exports to CPTPP markets, with the vast majority to be eliminated immediately upon entry into force of this agreement.
The CPTPP also addresses non-tariff measures that we know are prevalent and which create business uncertainty for our exporters. That includes the auto sector where we know non-tariff barriers have been a constant irritant. In addition, the chapter on state-owned enterprises and designated monopolies provides for rules to help ensure that state-owned enterprises operate on a commercial basis and in a non-discriminatory manner when making purchases and sales.
We did not stop there. The CPTPP also includes dedicated chapters on labour, the environment, small and medium-sized enterprises, transparency and anti-corruption. The labour chapter includes binding commitments to ensure that national laws and policies provide protection for fundamental principles and rights at work, including freedom of association, collective bargaining and the elimination of child labour and forced labour. When we relaunched stalled talks, these chapters were on ice. Now, both the labour and environment chapters are fully enforceable through the agreement's dispute settlement mechanism. 
We reaffirmed our right to regulate in the public interest. We promoted labour rights, environmental protection, and conservation. We preserved cultural identity and diversity. We promoted corporate social responsibility, gender equality and indigenous rights. Canada is now poised to be the only G7 country with free trade agreements with all of the other G7 countries.
To realize that remarkable value proposition, diversification into new markets must be a national project to which every farmer, rancher, fisher, manufacturer, entrepreneur, business owner and innovator commits their efforts.
I want to be very clear: diversification is a national priority. Diversification must be a project to which every farmer, rancher, fisher, manufacturer, entrepreneur, business owner, and innovator commits their efforts.
We need every Canadian with ambitions to grow their business to think global. We have countless people-to-people ties to almost every country on earth. These are the bridges over which more trade can flow.
We also need to support our youth in gaining global experience for their future career prospects, and securing Canada's place in the global economy. We will not stop until Canada is the epicentre of global trade and the world's most connected, stable, predictable, innovative and in-demand market on earth. We are focused on providing the middle class with unparalleled access to sell east across the Atlantic, south across our hemisphere, and west across the entire Pacific basin.
My first trip as the Minister of International Trade Diversification outside of North America was to Thailand and Singapore. In Singapore, I pushed for an acceleration of talks toward a possible free trade agreement, with the ASEAN nations adding some of the largest and fastest-growing countries to our ever-expanding piece of the Pacific pie.
While we must open opportunities for all Canadians, we must also focus on areas where Canada has a clear global competitive advantage. Our most innovative business sectors have the greatest export potential. This is a message that is coming through loud and clear through the work of the superclusters and economic strategy tables for advanced manufacturing, agrifood, health and bio-sciences, clean technology, digital industries, and resources of the future. We are committed to continuing this work with industry partners to turn high-growth Canadian companies into global successes. We are a government that invests in its ideas.
We recently announced $50 million to support diversification efforts and opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses. We need to link our small and medium-sized businesses to global supply chains and to multinationals and global infrastructure projects the world over. More global companies should see Canada as critical and integral to their supply chain, and our SMEs need access to international markets to scale-up.
Exports and imports account for 60% of Canada's GDP. This government knows that our competitiveness depends on making real investments in our future. The previous government talked a good game but focused only on the detail that worked for the top 1%. They scaled back the programs available through our trade commissioner service so it could only serve the privileged few, the ones largely operating overseas. We will reverse that trend and get our sales numbers way up.
Canada will also carry the mantle of defender of the global rules-based order. Canada played a key role in building the multilateral trading system of the last century and we will not see it eroded. We will defend it and we will reform it. Our convening power and commitment to the rules-based order is an essential strength and we will put it to work for more Canadians. That is why next month I will host a WTO reform summit in Ottawa.
Canada is the home of Marconi's Signal Hill and Bell Northern Research, precursors to our current successes in high tech. We were the birthplace of the Ski-Doo and the regional jet; the home of canola, an agri-innovation that helps feed the world; and Cirque du Soleil, which helps feed the soul.
We are the home of international gaming studios and the burgeoning hub of artificial intelligence. We are the home of the Canadarm and CANDU, the Toronto International Film Festival and Canada Goose. There is nothing like brand Canada. We are naturally global, but we have not always been actively global. The CPTPP is a call to action.
I urge all members in this House and the other place to move swiftly on this bill. Now is our time.
I urge all members in the House and the other place to move swiftly on this bill. Now is our time.
Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I welcome my hon. colleague to the role as the new Minister of International Trade Diversification.
I have a couple of questions for the minister. I want to point out that this party and its leader said in June that we would pass the bill at all stages so we could move forward on this initiative. It was also this party and its leader who said that we would come back in the summertime and move forward on this. It was also this party, under the former leadership, which had strong chapters on environment and labour, which remain virtually unchanged with the CPTPP.
I did read the article on the port of Montreal receiving 20% more, and we see that trade is up 12%. The challenge is that exports are only up 1% to CETA countries, to European countries.
Given the fact that the minister talks about certainty and the best place to do business, the challenge we have right now is around regulation and red tape. It is around getting some types of rules in place so people understand and can invest in energy, etc. in our country.
What will the government do to show the world that we are a predictable and reliable place to invest in?
Hon. Jim Carr: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the member to ensure the bill can move as expeditiously as possible through the House of Commons and the other place.
The hon. member knows that in order to have expedited processes, unanimous consent of all parties of the House is required. This was not possible, and he knows that. However, I take it from his very constructive intervention that he will work with us to ensure the process is as smooth as it can be, and we both undertake to have serious conversations with our counterparts on the other side of the House to ensure the bill moves as fast as we know the Canadian people want it to move.
The member also knows that we have taken many steps to ensure the regulatory process is more clear, that the timelines are predictable and that investors understand at the front end precisely what is involved in the process. We think that is a step forward. We hope that for many years to come it will serve the people of Canada.
Ms. Tracey Ramsey (Essex, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too welcome the minister. However, I am quite stunned by the minister's speech today. It indicates to me that the previous minister and his team have not fully briefed him on the impacts of NAFTA for working people, which he mentioned throughout his speech. We had 400 witnesses at committee on the TPP and we received written comments from 60,000 Canadians, 95% of which opposed the trans-Pacific partnership under its previous iteration.
The minister should really be well aware that industry and labour groups in the auto and auto parts sectors in Canada are strongly opposed to the CPTPP. The auto industry is already facing potential U.S. punitive tariffs. It is in the crosshairs of NAFTA. It knows its sector inside and out and it knows how false the Liberals' claims are that the CPTPP will open up markets in the Asia-Pacific, particularly Japan.
I really encourage the minister to speak with those in the auto sector in Ontario. I also encourage him to look at the statistics around the jobs that potentially would be lost. Twenty-thousand auto parts jobs in Canada would be lost under the CPTPP. It is not just me saying that. It is groups like the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, Unifor, the Canadian Labour Congress, as well as the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association of Canada. If the minister speaks with his staff, he will find it has had several meetings around this.
The auto industry does not want this trade deal. As a former auto worker who represents a region filled with auto workers, I understand this impact. Why is the government ignoring them?
Hon. Jim Carr: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the member to this new relationship. I invite her to join us in a very constructive way to ensure the legislation passes in the interest of the entire Canadian economy.
We have been having conversations, as the member knows, with various sectors for quite some time now. We are confident that this agreement will give access to markets that these sectors do not now have.
She also knows that trade produces growth and growth produces jobs. We are interested in creating new wealth for Canadians and that this new wealth is translated into new job opportunities for Canadians working now and Canadians who are looking for opportunities to work because we have opened up export markets.
I know the member's party is not traditionally supportive of any free trade agreements. We could look at the conversation in 1993 around NAFTA, and it would be very similar to the conversation we are having today. However, the world has changed. Canada is an outward looking nation. We know that these agreements will create opportunities for the working people of Canada, and we invite the member to join us to ensure we get there as quickly as we can.
Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is great to back in the chamber, this place of democracy in Canada.
I listened intently to the minister's speech. One of the things I heard over the summer was about the business climate in Canada, particularly in northern Alberta, Peace River—Westlock, the riding I come from, where we are seeing mass amounts of capital fleeing the province of Alberta and Canada. I know the government wants to use this to say that Canada is open for business. What is the government's plan to ensure we can get some of these major energy projects up and running again, particularly in northern Alberta?
Hon. Jim Carr: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I have had the privilege for the last two and a half years, almost three, of working with the people of northern Alberta, working with the energy workers of northern Alberta.
In my travels around the world, and most recently in the Asia-Pacific, I know there is a real appetite to have more serious conversations about the resources that are so important to the member's constituents, his province and indeed for all Canadians. Therefore, the sustainable development of our natural resources and the exploration of new export markets for those resources is a very important part of the government's strategic role. I look forward to working with the hon. member to ensure we do it in the best way we can.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Canada is really dependent on world international trade. Since day one, the Prime Minister has been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it. In many ways trade is one one way we can enhance and grow that middle class.
Could my colleague provide for the House his thoughts on how trade agreements and trade in general enhance the opportunity for Canadians in all regions of the country to benefit and, in particular, for what has been the Prime Minister's number one priority, Canada's middle class^
Hon. Jim Carr: Mr. Speaker, my fellow Manitoban understands how dependent we all are on international trade and how important it is for us to diversify markets. However, it is important to add another dimension to the answer and the discussion.
We spend an awful lot of time talking about how we distribute the national wealth. These are very important conversations. We all have ways we think we should be distributing this wealth that are equitable, that give opportunity to Canadians.
Also, we have to talk about creating wealth. The wealth is created in large measure by small and medium enterprise. Those enterprises that trade most freely, particularly in expanding markets, are the ones that create good jobs, the ones that create higher-paying jobs. That is the link between trade, wealth creation and jobs.
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister of international trade on his new portfolio. There are a lot of issues with TPP, but the short question is about the investor-state provision. We are now opening ourselves up to completely groundless charges against Canada, which Canada inevitably loses. Such was the case with Bilcon, where our Environmental Assessment Agency did a great job; two ministers, federally and provincially, did a great job; and Bilcon managed to go to a secret chapter 11 venue. Even though Canada appealed, we lost, and we now owe Bilcon up to $580 million. 
Why would we open ourselves up now to disputes from additional countries, including Malaysia and Japan? I do not think we will have much trouble from Brunei, but from large economic players. Their corporations can attack our laws, which are in place to protect our environment, labour rights, and public health. 
Hon. Jim Carr: Mr. Speaker, I just have a small correction, if I could, for my friend and hon. member: It is international trade diversification. That is a very purposeful and important word, and it leads to an answer to her question. Canada must always retain the capacity to respect the rules of the world trade order. As a matter of fact, I think we are on the verge of helping to lead a discussion on reforms to the WTO. It is also important that investors have confidence when they invest money around the world that those investments are reasonably protected. 
I also look forward to working with my hon. colleague as we seek swift passage of this important legislation. 
Dean Allison: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we are finally here for this debate to, hopefully, get this important trade agreement ratified quickly. CPTPP is a trade agreement that will greatly benefit Canadians and Canadian businesses. It will help diversify and grow our economy, and most importantly, it will help create needed Canadian jobs.
I have to say that it has taken longer than we thought for the current government to be able to get this implementation process in place. Having said that, now that we have NAFTA in jeopardy and a series of other issues on other major trade files, we need Canada to successfully continue to diversify its export markets now. There is no time to wait. We could have easily done this earlier in the summer when the opposition leader asked the Prime Minister to immediately convene an emergency session of the House to approve this agreement. It was disappointing to see that the Liberals rejected that offer. However, we are here now and we are ready to get it done.
For Canadians watching at home, it is important to explain what the CPTPP is. It is important because one out of every five Canadian jobs depends on international trade, and these are essential trading relationships that help generate 60% of our GDP. 
CPTPP stands for the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. It is the successor to the TPP agreement signed by our previous Conservative government. It includes 11 countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. It was signed in March of this year and is still waiting to be ratified. Hopefully the government will finally get this job done.
CPTPP reduces tariffs in countries representing 13% of the global economy, or a total of $10 trillion. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimated that the TPP, in the version signed by the previous Conservative government, would boost Canadian income by over $20 billion over the next decade. The agreement comes into force 60 days after at least six signatory countries ratify it, and the deadline to ratify it is in February 2019. After that, we lose our first-mover advantage, and Canada will have to play catch-up with the other signatory countries.
The Prime Minister replaced his international trade minister earlier this summer and told Canadians that the government would renew its efforts to diversify our exports. This opportunity is now. In fact, the opportunity was there even in June when, on this side of the House, we stood ready to get this deal ratified when the House was still sitting. It is not just Conservative MPs but Canadians throughout the country who have been waiting for the Liberal government to wake up to the many threats that loom large over our national economy. 
The Liberals are doing poorly on many fronts: market access for our natural resources, tax and regulatory competitiveness, and international trade diversification. They are also pursuing failed policies to increase taxes and drive down growth. They are trying to ram through a carbon tax and are going overboard with over-regulation.
Imposing the carbon tax on provinces, businesses and families has been a complete disaster for the Liberals. Now the environment minister says that any province that does not get on board with the Liberals' climate plan will not get its share of the government's $2 billion low-carbon economy fund. We ask, “Why are they blackmailing the provinces?” 
Despite this, many provinces refuse to sign on to the Liberals' carbon tax. Even Alberta's NDP premier withdrew her support for Ottawa's national climate change strategy. Seeing this, the Prime Minister tried quietly to walk-back how much some large companies will have to pay under this new carbon tax, yet he still plans to impose the carbon tax on smaller businesses and families to make up for the taxes the big guys are not paying. This makes no sense and is fundamentally unfair. The carbon tax is bad for everyone, not just the companies that can afford it most. The fact of the matter is that the Liberal carbon tax has increased the cost of living for every Canadian, including driving already skyrocketing gas prices even higher.
On top of everything, the Liberals are refusing to come clean on the true cost of the carbon tax for the average family. What we know so far is that gas prices will go up by at least 11¢ a litre and the cost of living to heat one's home will increase by over $200. However, again, the Liberals will not tell us the overall cost to an average Canadian family, because they do not want people to know what this scheme will actually cost. The Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report recently that found that the carbon tax will take over $10 billion out of the Canadian economy by 2022, while other estimates argue that this cost could be as much as $35 billion a year. This will, without a doubt, hurt jobs, workers and their families.
The good news is that common sense is winning the debate on this issue. More and more Canadians realize that the carbon tax is unfair and will leave them with less and less of their hard-earned tax dollars. Foreign investors are concerned, because the Liberals are simply making Canada a less attractive place to invest. Investment from abroad went down by 42% in 2016 and a further 27% in 2017.
Even the CEO of CIBC, Victor Dodig, is sounding the alarm over falling levels of foreign investment in Canada, warning that the country needs clearer rules to shore up investor confidence. Last week, The Globe and Mail reported that during a lunchtime speech in Toronto Mr. Dodig said he is increasingly hearing from the bank's clients that opportunities for investment returns are better south of the border. He cited several reasons, from the U.S. tax cuts and regulatory changes to trade uncertainty. He also went on to say that Ottawa's criteria for approving large deals involving foreign firms are not always clear, creating uncertainty for potential investors. He pointed to the debate over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project as a prime example of Canada sending the wrong signals:
 “That, to me, should be a siren call that that money is here. It will leave”, he said, “and I can't see any upside to it leaving....” Foreign investors “need confidence”, Mr. Dodig said. “They need an element of certainty. They need to know the rules. They need a clear understanding of how things get approved [here in Canada].” 
The Globe and Mail article goes on to say that these comments are in addition to Suncor CEO Steve Williams, who told investors in New York, “There is clearly a question of confidence in Canada”, echoing Imperial Oil Limited CEO Rich Kruger, who said this summer that regulatory uncertainty and concerns about competitiveness are causing investment decisions to be delayed. 
This is very worrisome. We can just look at what the Liberals have done with Canadian pipelines. It is absolutely stunning. When the Prime Minister was elected, three major energy companies had pipeline projects: northern gateway, energy east and Trans Mountain. They were prepared to build in Canada. Now, thanks to Liberal policies and decisions, we have none of these.
The Liberals piled on new regulations and red tape, and introduced an oil tanker ban and a bill that would effectively ban the future construction of pipelines, and that is on top of their carbon tax. These policies need to be repealed to restore investor confidence in the Canadian energy sector. 
However, nowhere has the Liberal mismanagement been more evident than in their handling of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. It would be difficult for them to top this one.
When the Liberals announced that they were nationalizing the existing Trans Mountain pipeline, Canadians were told that it was going to cost 4.5 billion of their tax dollars to allow construction to begin immediately. The reality is that taxpayers are now the shareholders of this monstrous Liberal boondoggle, and not one centimetre of pipeline has been built. It is absolutely unacceptable that Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for $4.5 billion of pipeline that may never be built, and that is in addition to the estimated cost of somewhere around $9.3 billion to actually twin the pipeline. Also, recently, the Federal Court of Appeal found that the government had failed to consult indigenous people on the Trans Mountain expansion and overturned approval of the project.
Thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs because of Liberal failures. We gave the Prime Minister another opportunity to outline his plan on how he will get the Trans Mountain expansion built and Canadians back to work. We tried to do this through an emergency meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and, yet again, the Prime Minister forced the Liberal MPs to shut down a study of the government's handling of the Trans Mountain expansion. His government has been given multiple chances to reassure Canadians, but instead he has chosen to rely on empty rhetoric. 
Our hard-working men and women in the resource sector, whose jobs and livelihoods depend on these projects, deserve to have a competent government that does not get in the way of resource sector jobs at every opportunity it gets. These workers deserve a concrete plan to ensure that the Trans Mountain expansion is actually going to be completed. The failure to get the Trans Mountain expansion built is now threatening other expansions in the oil and gas sector, adding to the total number of jobs at risk. The Trans Mountain pipeline is crucial to oil and gas workers across Canada and to the regional economies that stand to benefit from its expansion, including 43 first nation communities that have benefit agreements worth over $400 million, which now hang in the balance. I also mentioned that right here in Ontario, there are all kinds of businesses close to my riding and in southwestern Ontario that would also benefit from building pipelines. 
How do we persuade potential trading partners that our country is open for business, when Liberal policies prove the opposite? The Liberals have not been able to address Canada's faltering position on the global economy. It is a position they put us in with their policies. It is one thing after another with the government. In fact, it is difficult to think of an example of a foreign policy win for the government since it took office in 2015. 
That is why I hope that ratification of the CPTPP goes through smoothly. We cannot afford any more issues and delays. 
Time and again the Liberals have demonstrated their lack of seriousness to our potential international trading partners. Last year, the Prime Minister touted a free trade agreement with China. What happened there? The Prime Minister's visit to Beijing actually set back our trading relationship. It also failed to address any of the concerns Canadians have about trade with China. The Prime Minister then skipped a critical meeting at the CPTPP, angering our Asia-Pacific partners like Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. There was also his embarrassing trip to India that still haunts us to this day. It is time for the government and the Prime Minister to take trade and our relationships around the world seriously.
I want to dedicate some time to speaking about our trade relationship with the United States, who at one point was a signatory to the original TPP agreement. It is important to note that the United States is Canada's most important trading partner. Twenty per cent of Canada's GDP is tied to our commercial relationship with the United States, and over 74% of Canadian exports go to the United States. 
It is no secret that the government is in the midst of very difficult NAFTA negotiations. At this stage, the Americans seem to have already struck an agreement with Mexico and are using that as leverage. This could potentially impact millions of Canadian jobs. Canadians are concerned that our government was not at the table while these decisions were being made. It seems like we were on the outside looking in while major sectors of our economy and millions of Canadian jobs have hung in the balance.
We are heavily dependent on our American neighbours. This makes any tariff action against us very painful for our economy. American tariffs imposed on Canadian steel and aluminum are just another example of why we need to expand foreign markets for Canadian manufacturers. The CPTPP is one effective avenue for this expansion. It has the potential to boost Canadian income by billions over the next decade. That is why we cannot risk looking our first mover advantage. We do not want to jeopardize jobs and supply lines by not being part of the first six ratifying signatories. 
We all know that this agreement has broad support. Several industry groups representing agriculture, agrifood, and forestry have all come forward in support of the CPTPP. That said, we would work with all sectors to minimize the risk under the agreement. However, we maintain that on balance this agreement is good for the broadest range of Canadian manufacturers.
Economic modelling by both the Canada West Foundation and the federal government confirm that there would be hundreds of billions of dollars in immediate benefits for Canadian firms if we are among the first wave of signatories to ratify the agreement.
I want to go back to American tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum for a second, because they tie in with the urgency of diversifying our trade.
American tariffs have caused great concern among our workers in the Canadian steel and aluminum industries. Thousands of jobs and the livelihood of Canadian workers and businesses are all being threatened. This is even more worrisome considering the U.S. government's repeated threats to impose a 25% tariff on the auto sector. The longer we go without a deal on NAFTA and the closer we get to auto tariffs being imposed, the more anxious Canadians will get and the less certain they will be when it comes to making business decisions. The most pressing priority, and I believe we are all united on this, is to protect Canadian jobs and industry by having tariffs removed from Canadian steel and aluminum, and by stopping new tariffs from being imposed.
That is why we made it clear to the government that we would continue to work with it to bring forward concrete ideas to defend local jobs. Defending local jobs is exactly what my colleagues and I on this side of the House did during the summertime. We travelled across Canada to meet with workers, businesses, and labour groups to determine how best to respond to threats posed by U.S. tariffs and the continued trade uncertainty around NAFTA. We met with over 200 stakeholders from the steel, aluminum, automotive, and manufacturing sectors across four provinces. 
We heard from stakeholders that they want the government to do three things: first, conclude negotiations and sign a NAFTA deal as soon as possible; second, provide immediate support to companies struggling to stay afloat; and third, take steps to improve Canada's competitiveness by reducing red tape. 
Businesses need certainty. That is why the first recommendation to sign a NAFTA deal was by far the most repeated one by stakeholders this summer. We also heard that businesses have already cut orders, that shifts are being reduced, workers are being laid off, and that others will lose their jobs in the next couple of months.
I also want to mention that despite the government's promise of $2 billion in aid, we found that no one has been able to access any of this money. The $2 billion was earmarked for additional debt offered by EDC and BDC, as well as employment insurance programs like work sharing and retraining.
The challenge I have with the $2 billion is that $1.7 of that was to go to EDC or BDC in the form of additional loans, not tariff relief. We had $250 million to run the strategic innovation fund, and when we dug into that, we found it was for companies doing over $10 million in sales and employing over 200 people. Let us think about that.
No SMEs could get any access to the $2 billion fund. Then we see monies committed for work sharing. Work sharing, to me, sounds a lot like a postmortem of what is going on. It sounds like the horse has left the barn and we are just trying to save the furniture now. Work sharing is a good program, but we need to make sure that people can expand their businesses, not find ways for them not to be able do it. That is the challenge I have with the $2 billion.
We read a great article by David Akin in the The Globe and Mail last week. He said that only $11,000 has gone out, and yet there has been almost $300 million collected in tariffs.
The other thing we found out from talking to businesses is that the tariffs are not actually tariffs, but a surtax. They are actually not eligible for any kind of duty deferral or duty remittances, or any of these kinds of things. It is actually an additional tax. 
We have over $16 billion's worth of items being tariffed, anywhere from 25% to 10%, depending on what the products are, which would, if we calculate that out, be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2 billion in additional tax revenue, and yet we have not seen one nickel of that going back to SMEs. There is $2 billion of tax revenue coming in, in the form of surtaxes, and right now we have no plan, other than what was a perceived announcement, on how our small- and medium-sized enterprises are actually going to access any of that kind of tariff relief.
Some of the SMEs are going to have the conversation, asking how they are going to get the money back. They are being informed that they will be told in 60 or 90 days, whatever the case may be. I heard one company say that it may be up to 200 days. Let us think about that. Some of these companies will not be around if that is allowed to continue.
We talked to companies. I was with one of our members in Concord. We asked an aerospace company about what would happen if we did not resolve the issue around tariffs, and they said that it represented an existential threat to their company. They have parts whose prices have now gone up almost 100%.
We see what has happened because of tariffs. We see steel and aluminum prices, steel in particular, going up anywhere from 25% to 50% across the country. That presents a real problem.
I just do not think that piling on more debt, as I mentioned before, or easing workers' transitions into unemployment are adequate solutions. Companies affected by steel and aluminum tariffs are struggling to stay afloat, and need immediate support. This tit-for-tat with the United States makes it even more urgent that we seize every opportunity to expand and diversify our trading relationships.
On this side of the House, we have always supported this. The previous Conservative government had the foresight to conclude free trade negotiations and investment agreements with 53 other countries, including the countries of the original trans-Pacific partnership and the other 28 countries of CETA, which concluded in 2014. Speaking about CETA, another Conservative trade accomplishment, last week the Financial Post reported that CETA has boosted container shipping and promoted a hiring spree at the docks in Montreal.
Once again, the minister mentioned that there had been some increased activity at the docks in Montreal, and it is certainly great to see in Canada that the European free trade agreement is doing exactly what it was designed to do. I would caution, though, that as we have seen imports expand by 12%, our exports have only gone up by 1%. That means there is more work for government to do to get our companies prepared to be able to sell into these markets.
The Financial Post went on to say that the employers association that handles training for the port workforce, as well as the Montreal Port Authority, attributes much of the container flow to the CETA agreement. That is a good new story, but there is still more work that we need to do to expand our exports. 
It is also said that the extra dock traffic spurred the association to start hiring 50 more longshoremen and 15 more auditors, resulting in several key terminals nearly doubling their operating time to 17 hours each work day. This is an incredible accomplishment and evidence that benefits come from diversifying Canada's trade.
Canada's Conservative Party is the party of free trade, and we understand the importance of reliable access to markets for Canadian business and workers. In conclusion, I would like to say that given the importance of the bill to Canadian livelihoods, it is crucial to the public interest that Canada ratify the CPTPP agreement as soon as possible.
Mr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleague across the aisle on this and other important legislation that will benefit the entire population of Canada. I would like to start by advising my colleague not to talk down our economy. There is absolutely room for debate and discussion, but this constant talking down of our economy while all experts and economists are talking about the growth rate of our economy, one of the fastest in the G7, with the lowest unemployment in 40 years, and the doubling in foreign direct investment from last year. These are good measures. Yes, there is room for debate, absolutely, and let us debate that. 
Given that the previous TPP left so much on the table, does he not agree that this version of the TPP, the CPTPP, better protects Canadian interests in intellectual property, jobs, environmental standards, and labour standards? I am curious if he agrees with me or not. 
Dean Allison: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the parliamentary secretary as well.
One of the things I need to say is that it is not a question of talking down the economy. I personally talked to almost 150 stakeholders at over 26 meetings across the country this year, and what I heard over and over again is the fact that we have huge uncertainty in our economy. People are not making investments here because they say that our taxes and regulations are too high. They are saying that the regulatory pathway for how we approve energy projects makes no sense, and I was not necessarily just talking to energy people. 
The fact remains that we have a whole bunch of issues on the table that make Canada less competitive. We talk to industries right now and they say they are not looking to invest in Canada. They are actually thinking of moving their investment dollars south of the border. When we look at high taxes, not even including the carbon tax, regulatory uncertainty, and increased red tape, it is true. 
What we are trying to point out to the government is that it needs to do more work if we are to be competitive, attract investment dollars, and continue to grow our economy. 
Tracey Ramsey: Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I serve as vice-chairs on the international trade committee. I take his point about the tariffs. It has been a very difficult summer in Ontario and southwestern Ontario. People are losing their jobs. Small shops are closing. It is quite devastating. We in the NDP have called for a national tariff task force, and I hope my colleague in the Conservative Party will join us in the effort to address all of the issues he highlighted and the fact that only $11,000 has been paid out to people who are struggling incredibly, when almost $300 million has been collected. This is a broken system, and we have people who are losing their jobs. 
My question focuses on the auto sector, which is under attack right now. I often said throughout the summer that it is as though Donald Trump has custom made these tariffs for southwestern Ontario in particular, but certainly our auto sector. We have the steel and aluminum tariffs, the threat of the 25% auto tariff, NAFTA uncertainty, and now we have the CPTPP. It puts 58,000 manufacturing jobs at risk in Canada, including 20,000 in our automotive parts supply chain in Canada. 
Does the member think that our auto sector in Canada has not given enough in trade agreements? Will the Conservatives not defend the auto sector and stand with the NDP against this trade deal that would harm the sector significantly? 
Dean Allison: Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to be in the member for Essex's part of the country this summer and to tour the Chrysler plant and to listen to some of their concerns. I know she is well aware that Chrysler employs over 6,000 people there, as well as another 4,000 in Brampton. They are very concerned. Ninety-five per cent of the cars they produce go to the U.S., so the talk about the threat of a potential 25% tariff is something that concerns them greatly.
On top of that, we have a whole bunch of other issues around the table. We have supply chains in the immediate area of these auto plants, and they are concerned as well. Certainly, the steel and aluminum tariffs have been major issues, not only for steel and aluminum producers, but also for those people who supply the industry. 
As we move forward with any kind of trade deal, one of the things we need to be mindful of, which the auto sector did say it has some concerns about, is non-tariff barriers. Those are issues that we need to constantly fight against as we look at some of these things. We need to go into this agreement with eyes wide open, realizing there will be more work to be done to make sure the deal continues to do what it is supposed to do. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the trade debate, I appreciate the Conservatives are supporting this legislation. However, they seem to be stuck on misinformation that goes back to the era of Stephen Harper. I know they are great fans of Stephen Harper. Every time the name comes up they tend to applaud their new leader, who kind of tries to emulate Stephen Harper.
There is a bit of misinformation. The member opposite tries to give the impression that Stephen Harper signed 50-plus trade agreements. The reality is that the EU agreement, which had over 28 nations, was never finalized under Stephen Harper. In fact, it was off track, it was going nowhere. 
The good news is that the current government minister was the one who got it back on track, and it was this Prime Minister and the efforts of this cabinet that got the deal done. The good news is that the minister who was responsible for getting it back on track is the one who is negotiating NAFTA. That is good news for all Canadians.
I would ask my colleague this. Does he not agree that achieving a good deal is the type of thing we should be striving for, first and foremost, for all Canadians?
Dean Allison: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleague from Winnipeg North that those trade deals we brought wrapped in a bow and put them at the Liberals' doorstep. All they had to do was walk them across the finish line. All the heavy lifting had been done. However, that almost got screwed up, believe it or not. It was unbelievable in terms of the Prime Minister walking out, leaving the former trade minister at a table trying to explain where the Prime Minister was. It was like, “What happened?” There were no comments. I think actions like that have created a conflict that did not previously exist.
Quite frankly, when we look at what the differences are with the CPTTP, other than the name, which is mostly all that is different about that, the same strong regulations around labour and environment are still there. There are a few sidebar agreements, but most of these are non-binding. Therefore, at the end of the day, the deal that we have in place under CETA was largely negotiated by the former government. Yes, the current government still had to ratify it. As a matter of fact, the individual member states still need to do that today. TPP was the same. The current government should be thankful for all the heavy lifting that was done by the former government to get us to where we were. The Liberal government almost messed up some of those agreements. However, thank goodness it finally saw the light and was able to move these things across the finish line. 
Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the Liberals say, “Don't talk down our economy.” For the last three years, all the Liberals have done is talk. The reality is if they had signed the TPP three years ago, Obama would have signed it and we would not be in NAFTA negotiations, as we sit today, and a lot of these problems that Canadian businesses face would not be there. However, what did they do? They talked and they talked, and the reality is we are in crisis mode.
I know this member has been across Canada talking to businesses, labour groups and different people right across Canada. Therefore, he should not talk down our economy; rather, he should tell us what they are telling him in those meetings.
Dean Allison: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague because I know that he has also been on the road talking to businesses this summer and I am sure he is hearing some of the same things I have heard.
I have heard a number of things. The first thing is that we need to get a NAFTA deal done yesterday. The challenge right now is the uncertainty that it creates around businesses that normally like to plan two to three to five years out. Some of these businesses are saying they cannot even plan for the next three to six months because they do not know what is going on. I have heard story after story.
I have personally talked to over 150 stakeholders, business people, associations and chambers of commerce. This is not stuff I am making up, this is stuff I have heard from people on the ground. I know that my hon. colleague has also heard from people on the ground. They are saying that uncertainty is the killer of business. It is what kills businesses with respect to being able to figure out what they are doing next week, next quarter. As a matter of fact, I have heard a number of people say they have issues. One company I talked to in Welland had already laid off 25% of its workforce because of the uncertainty. A number of other companies in the steel and aluminum industry have said there is no way for them to figure out the tariffs going across the border and because of that they will actually have to lay off some of the people on our side of the country. 
The challenge I have is that when businesses do not have certainty there is no way that they can plan for the future. I had a number of businesses that were actually going to invest and double the size of their companies here in Canada with no government money, and they have put their investments on hold. Members should think about that. These were companies that were going to invest in their own businesses, and that has been put on hold because of the uncertainty in this country.
Tracey Ramsey: Mr. Speaker, I have been preparing for a long time to rise in this place to debate Bill C-79 at second reading, which is an act to implement the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership between Canada, and 10 other countries: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. It is critically important that we have the opportunity to debate this implementing legislation, as the CPTPP is a massive agreement with far-reaching implications for Canadians.
The Liberals and Conservatives tried to bypass this debate we are having today. They tried to shove the legislation through without parliamentary oversight.
I am proud of our NDP caucus. It has stood up for full democratic debate and a vote on this agreement, one which has working people across our country very nervous. I have committed to auto stakeholders, supply management farms, building trades and the 60,000 Canadians who wrote to the trade committee to have this debate.
As many will remember, the CPTPP started out as the TPP, which included the United States. Canada was late in joining the negotiations, and we were forced to accept everything that had been negotiated to that point. To say that we entered with a weakened negotiating position underplays the terms we accepted on key issues, including on intellectual property, digital and cultural policies, and ISDS provisions that would allow foreign companies to sue domestic governments like those in Canada.
The agreement was negotiated with little transparency or accountability, as Canadians were left in the dark about the government's agenda. This is an unfortunate trend that has continued under the Liberals in the same way it was under the Conservatives.
A deal was finalized in October 2015 in the midst of a federal election campaign, when many Canadians were asking if the Conservative government had a mandate to do so. I remember this time well. Like many of my colleagues, I was knocking on doors and talking to voters across my riding. People in Essex—Windsor were very concerned about the TPP, and for good reason. Many are employed in sectors that would be negatively impacted by this agreement. In our region, we build cars and supply auto parts, work in tool and die shops, and manufacture steel pipe and tube.
Over the last few decades, my region, like many in Canada, has watched as thousands of good manufacturing jobs have disappeared thanks to trade deals like NAFTA, and the exodus of quality jobs to jurisdictions with lower wages and weaker labour standards.
It is not easy for people to lose their jobs. I know this first-hand. I am a 20-year auto worker, and I, along with many of my friends and co-workers, was laid off in the economic downturn of 2008. These are not just numbers on economic reports, but are in fact people's livelihoods: their incomes, their means of supporting their families and in turn their contribution to their communities.
The impact of job loss on people and their families cannot be understated. Many of my co-workers struggled not only financially, but also with their own health and mental health in the aftermath of these desperate years. Marriages did not survive, keys were handed to the bank and some fell into addiction. Many struggled to find hope for themselves.
This is what workers in Canada face. Those occupying the 58,000 jobs under threat are facing this type of life going forward. When I say the TPP threatens to kill thousands of good Canadian jobs, we as parliamentarians must take that seriously. Once these jobs are gone, they are not easily replaced, and when they are replaced, it is usually with precarious part-time and low-wage work.
The people of the United States elected Donald Trump as their president, which was in no small part due to his attempt at luring people to vote for him under the guise that he understood the frustrations of generations of workers who had been left behind by unfair trade agreements. He promised to get rid of NAFTA and withdraw from the TPP.
Mr. Trump's message may have resonated with working people, but his proposed solutions completely miss the mark and will only make things worse for the very people he claims to represent. In fact, that is already the case.
After President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the trans-Pacific partnership in 2017, the remaining signatories continued to meet quietly behind closed doors, in secret. I find this beyond insulting to those who are involved in the current NAFTA renegotiations. I will never forget the betrayal that was expressed toward the Liberals when they signed us back on to the newly minted CPTPP in the middle of a NAFTA renegotiation round in Montreal. Stakeholders in labour were stunned to learn that while they were participating in NAFTA rounds in good faith, believing that the government had finally woken up to the reality of their valuable input into trade negotiations, they were blindsided by the signing, which the government failed to mention to anyone during the weekend. How is it that Liberals were spending day and night in meetings and that this massive trade announcement slipped their mind and they forget to mention it to the stakeholders in the room?
I want to talk a little bit about the TPP and compare it to the CPTPP. We have the old contents and we have the new ones. It will come as no surprise to most Canadians that they are largely similar. The Liberals will point to the mere 20 provisions that were suspended and the multiple side letters, as we heard the minister do earlier. All of these still remain uncertain for many Canadians and we have to keep in mind that all of these provisions were crafted without the input of key stakeholders.
The CPTPP contains the same harmful provisions on auto, dairy, temporary foreign workers, labour mobility and investor-state dispute settlement. The idea that the TPP was somehow transformed into something progressive is laughable. It appears to be a cynical attempt at misleading Canadians.
Trade agreements cannot be just made up of shiny fluff, the products of public relations and rebranding. They need to be meaningful to the lives of everyday Canadians. Canadians do not even know what was agreed to in multiple side letters, including those on culture and autos. How is it that we are debating this legislation and do not even have the full text still for us to be able to fully view?
I want to talk a little about these side letters. This is where Liberals will point to addressing all of the concerns that New Democrats have. It is time that these side letters are exposed for exactly what they are, aspirational language that has absolutely zero enforceability. It is also where the Liberals will point to the so-called progressive elements, which carry very little weight compared to the text in the main agreement. Side letters cannot supersede the text of the main agreement and a side letter is not enforceable through the agreement's dispute settlement mechanisms unless it is explicitly mentioned.
If a Liberal MP stands in this House and defends this agreement based on the side letters then they should be ashamed for fooling people they represent, or they clearly do not understand the way that trade agreements work at all. I hope that my colleagues on all sides of this House in auto ridings will keep that in mind when they are explaining to the people who will be losing their jobs.
Of the 20 suspended provisions, 11 come from the chapter on intellectual property. Many critics of the original TPP have welcomed these changes. However, it is important to remind Canadians that these suspensions are not set in stone and could enter into force at future dates. Suspensions are little more than a way to sell the agreement: “Do not worry. It is suspended.” This is a dangerous sense of security because those provisions could reappear in the agreement very easily. 
The original TPP's chapter on intellectual property contained harmful proposals that would have impeded Canadians' access to affordable medicines. These include extended patent terms for medicines, 70-year copyright terms, minimum terms of data protections for biologics and rules that would have encouraged the pharmaceutical practice of evergreening. If the United States were to rejoin the pact, the suspended provisions could be be brought back to life with the consensus of treaty members. This is very dangerous. It could lead to more stringent patent terms and higher drug costs for Canadians. In fact, we are anxiously waiting to see right now if a revised NAFTA will contain some of these same or even worse proposals. Canadians are very worried about this. At a time when the government should be introducing universal pharmacare and not just studying it again, and working to lower the cost of Canadians' prescription medications, they could in fact be setting us up for the opposite.
Now I want to talk a little bit about the rebranding and about the “P” in the CPTPP that stands for progressive. How can the Liberals brand this deal as progressive? Let us talk about some of the issues that exist in that. The new mandate letter, I should point out, for the new International Trade Diversification Minister omits any reference to this Liberal so-called progressive agenda, which is quite telling I think.
The CPTPP has no chapters on gender or on the rights of indigenous people, which is something that the government said was important in the course of NAFTA negotiations. Why has it disappeared from the CPTPP? The CPTPP does not even mention the words “climate change” and its labour provisions are extremely weak. It contains provisions that will weaken Canada's supply-managed sector. It contains harmful ISDS provisions that have been destructive for environment and corrosive to the sovereignty of our government. None of those things are particularly progressive. I will give my colleagues a quote from Scott Sinclair at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. He stated:
 If the Trudeau government’s rhetoric about progressive trade and inclusive growth means anything—which is an open question—then it requires a genuine rebalancing of trade treaties to better protect workers, citizens and the environment, and to confront the 21st century challenges of extreme inequality and runaway climate change. 
The next thing I would like to discuss a little is the consultations. Certainly the Liberal government is in favour of consultations, although the meaningfulness of those consultations has really come under scrutiny, particularly over the NAFTA talks that happened over the summer.
As I have said, the Conservatives signed us on to this deal in 2015 during the campaign. As soon as the Liberals took office, they promised that their new government would be different and that it would consult with the public. Instead of undertaking meaningful public consultations, the government passed this on to the international trade committee, of which I am the vice-chair. Our trade committee's so-called public consultations were widely criticized for restricting public participation in a variety of ways. For example, we received over 8,000 submissions from Canadians, but we struggled to translate and adequately review all these submissions. The fact is that the committees, not just my own, have limited resources, and are not equipped to do true public consultations. The Liberals love to say that they are consulting, but their shallow definition of what constitutes public consultation is very troublesome. This was shown in the recent court ruling on the pipeline and the government's failure to properly consult indigenous people.
On the TPP, the trade committee hearings allowed for a one-hour time slot for the public to make presentations. Every city we toured was filled with people who wanted to speak about the TPP. In Montreal, 19 out of 19 public presenters were opposed. In Quebec City, three out of three were opposed. We heard from more than 400 witnesses and received written comments from more than 60,000 Canadians, of whom 95% were opposed to the TPP.
According to Global Affairs documents obtained by The Council of Canadians, only two out of 18,000 Canadians wrote to the government in support of the TPP. I want to repeat that: two out of 18,000 people who wrote the government expressed support. That means only .01% of everyone who participated in these email consultations supported the deal. It is no wonder the Liberals are using the guise of public consultations as cover to sign Canada on to the job-killing TPP.
Let us talk about the timing. At a time when the Trump administration is threatening to implement devastating auto tariffs, both the Conservatives and Liberals are championing a trade deal that would put 58,000 Canadian jobs at risk, 20,000 in auto parts alone. The leader of the Conservative Party asked to recall the House of Commons in the summer in order to ram through the TPP trade deal, which would decimate these industries, industries that are already endangered under Trump's outrageous tariffs. There could not be a worse time to be ratifying the CPTPP. Destroying one industry in hopes that another one will eventually grow is not diversification; it is a death sentence for our domestic sectors. Conservatives may be comfortable turning their backs on the auto sector, as it appears the Liberals are, but New Democrats will stand strong with them in these very difficult times.
Let us talk about tariffs. We know the CPTPP would lead to the elimination of tariffs on a range of imported goods and exports in sectors like aerospace, metals and minerals, chemicals and plastics, industrial machinery, pharmaceuticals, agriculture and agrifood, fish and seafood, and forestry and value-added wood products. However, it is important to note that we are already 97% tariff-free with CPTPP countries, so we are talking about three per cent of the tariffs being reduced inside this.
I understand this is significant for some in our agriculture society, but I also know our agricultural communities are struggling not just with the tariff reductions but the non-tariff barriers. Earlier, my colleague spoke to the fact that we have to do more. We have to address and tackle the true barriers, because too many Canadian exporters cannot access existing markets, let alone potential new markets, and there are many ways the federal government can support them.
I have heard CETA mentioned in this House today, and certainly the numbers out of the Port of Montreal. What is not being mentioned is the fact that since we signed CETA a year ago, our exports to those countries have gone down. Do we know what has gone up? Imports from CETA countries. There has been a flood from those countries. Again, Canada is in worse shape with those countries today after signing CETA than it was a year ago. Something is wrong here, and Canadians know it.
I also want to talk about the fact that, as I said, the auto sector is in dangerous times. Over the summer, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh visited the Windsor-Essex region, which is the epicentre of the steel and aluminium trade dispute. He heard from workers and businesses that are very worried about the increased tariffs and unfair trade deals. He committed to them that at every turn, the NDP will stand up for Canadian workers and against the job-killing CPTPP.
Industry and labour groups in the auto and auto parts sector are strongly opposed to the CPTPP. The auto industry is already facing those punitive tariffs and simply cannot stand any more pressure at this point. They know their sector inside and out, and they know how false the Liberals' claims are that the CPTPP will open up markets in the Asia-Pacific region. In fact, they have tried desperately to get the Liberal government to listen to them, to listen to the fact that they will lose jobs and that they are in jeopardy. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has refused to do so and is barely acknowledging the fact that they will be harmed.
The other thing I have to mention is supply management. How can we have a government that repeatedly stands and says that it will protect supply management when in CPTPP it is giving up percentages? At least under the Conservatives there was money attached, some type of compensation to help them. That has completely evaporated under the Liberal government. We are in a precarious time in NAFTA right now in our negotiating phase, and one of the largest issues on the table is supply management. Why, then, would the Liberals bring the CPTPP, which is damaging our supply management, as the very first piece of proposed legislation to put through the House, knowing that we are at this critical juncture in NAFTA? It is baffling, and our farmers are not fooled by the Liberal government and this death by a thousand cuts.
We find ourselves in this extraordinary time in our relationship with our largest trading partner and this delicate renegotiation of NAFTA. It seems like incredibly poor political timing to be pushing through the CPTPP, which some view as poking the bear, with the bear being Donald Trump.
I had a meeting with farmers in my office on Friday night. They are extremely worried about the future of supply management in Canada and in my riding of Essex. They hear Liberals repeating the same lines over and over—that they created and will protect supply management—but to farmers like Bernard Nelson in Essex, protecting our dairy sector means that we do not open a percentage of our market. Whether it is in CETA, CPTPP, or now NAFTA, it is a slippery slope toward the beginning of the end. Bernard and I agree that this approach is death by a thousand cuts and will hurt Canadian farmers.
Diversification is important, but it must be done in a responsible way. Ratifying the CPTPP is the opposite of this. How can Liberals be fighting for a better deal in NAFTA for the very sectors that they are willing give up in the CPTPP? I can tell members that the Liberals must stop signing onto neo-Liberal trade deals like the CPTPP and embrace a truly progressive trade policy that does not leave working people behind. The NDP is determined to continue fighting for truly fair and progressive trade that respects the rights of Canadians. It is time to put the interests of people first, including manufacturing workers, rural communities, and local and small family farms.
I move, seconded by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot:
 That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: 
 the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-79, An Act to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, because: 
 a) 95% of the more than 60,000 Canadians who made submissions on the deal were opposed to it; 
 b) experts have said that this deal could cost Canada 58,000 jobs; 
 c) the negotiations were shrouded in secrecy, despite promises of transparency from the government on trade deals; and 
 d) the agreement contains weak labour and environmental standards, and puts our public services and cultural sectors at risk. 

The Deputy Speaker: Order. On the motion to move the amendment, I wonder if the hon. member for Essex had another seconder in mind. I see that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is not present. 
It is the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, then.
Questions and comments.
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's speech.
It is always great to hear a speech on trade from the New Democratic Party. It basically writes itself as it unfolds.
All of the experts around the world point us to the need for Canada to diversify its trade. All of the experts point us to those Asian and South American economies that are growing incredibly quickly, where managed trade relationships, structured trade, and privileged access to those markets is an absolute imperative for Canada. We have achieved that. We have achieved significant protections for key Canadian industries and significant advantages for key Canadian sectors.
The question that I have and that I always have for my friends in the New Democratic Party is this: what trade deal are they able to support?
Tracey Ramsey: Mr. Speaker, the type of trade agreement that we will support is a good one, one that works for Canadians, one that is balanced, one that does not throw one sector under the bus in favour of another—balanced trade.
Our country and North America have been gripped by this issue over the summer, with the uncertainty with the United States. Certainly my region, being on the border, feels this very keenly.
I would invite the member to come to my riding at any time to speak to people about what Canadians think about responsible trade deals. I understand the need to diversify and we support that strongly, but it must be responsible. The CPTPP is not.
I will just point really quickly to the labour aspect. I heard the minister talk about labour earlier, and about how he felt that the labour section was an improvement. I am not sure that the Liberals are aware that in the original TPP, the U.S. had negotiated a 12-page labour reform to allow Vietnamese workers to have free and independent collective bargaining. That has disappeared. The U.S., under President Obama, struck a labour consistency plan with Malaysia and Brunei in an effort to ensure that both countries lived up to fundamental labour standards. Canada was not able to maintain those.
It seems as though when we went back to the table for the CPTPP, we made zero effort to improve this deal for Canadians. That was a missed opportunity, because essentially what the Liberals picked up was a Conservative negotiation.
Hon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the Chair again.
I would like to comment on the speech by my friend from Essex. Last fall, when the Liberal government did not mention the auto industry and its importance in NAFTA for six months, it was actually that member and I who were pushing from both sides of the opposition, as part of Team Canada, to say that the auto industry, the hundreds of thousands of jobs, needed to be the centrepiece of NAFTA.
Why can the member now say that the auto manufacturing jobs in Windsor are not going to benefit from the TPP? If we are not part of the TPP, we will not be able to compete with Mexico and we will not be able to compete with the global auto industry. We cannot choose only one deal and not others. We have to have confidence in our auto supply sector and in our auto assembly sector.
Why does the member for Essex not have that confidence?
Tracey Ramsey: Mr. Speaker, I have complete confidence in our Canadian auto sector to be able to compete globally, absolutely, but when we are setting up trade deals where it is actually identifying to us that this is not the case, we need to listen. On the CPTPP, the auto sector was not part of the consultations under the Conservatives nor under the Liberals. 
It is not me as the member for Essex who is saying that this deal will harm auto. It is the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association. It is the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association. It is Unifor. It is the Canadian Labour Congress. This is not a reflection of me and what I think will benefit my region. This is what we are hearing from the stakeholders. It is baffling that in NAFTA all of these stakeholders are in the room and are part of the conversation driving where we are going to potentially go in a better NAFTA, but in the CPTPP, none of that happened under the Liberals or the Conservatives. 
It is not me who is creating these questions of what is going on in these trade deals. It is the behaviour of the Conservatives and the Liberals in their negotiations and forgetting about the people who need to be in the room when talking about the jobs that they represent.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide some clarity for my friend across the way. When it comes to trade agreements, as has been cited, the NDP members have been consistent. They have consistently voted down trade agreements. 
Canada is a trading nation. We need to trade with the world. If we want to grow our middle class, we need to have trust and faith in Canadian companies, including our automotive industry. We have the finest workers in the world in Canada. By taking on trade agreements, we are bringing in potential opportunities for growth in many industries.
No matter what the trade agreement, with one possible exception which I think might have been Jordan, the NDP has never supported the middle class by voting in favour of a trade agreement. Why not?
Tracey Ramsey: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member listened to my speech today where I identified that 58,000 jobs are under threat in the CPTPP, some 20,000 auto supply sector jobs. If those are not middle-class jobs, I do not know what is. The people who are defending middle-class jobs in Canada are the New Democrats and we are listening to the auto sector.
When the member speaks about consistency, the only thing consistent on that side is the inconsistency. We have NAFTA where they pulled everyone into a big tent and they are having all these conversations with people and listening and trying to do better, but with the CPTPP, absolutely zero of that happened. When the member talks about consistency, I think he should look in the mirror with the rest of his party on how they are approaching trade agreements.
Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to put some facts before the House. The auto sector is the largest Canadian manufacturing sector. Canada is the 10th largest vehicle producer in the world. We have 125,000 people directly employed by the auto sector. We are responsible for $103 billion in factory sales around the world.
On the CPTPP, the government has negotiated rules of origin where the regional value content for auto parts in cars that would qualify for tariff-free entry into Canada is between 35% and 45%. That means that parts that go into cars have to be made 35% to 45% in countries like Vietnam and Malaysia and they can source 55% to 65% of their parts from non-CPTPP countries, including China, India, Bangladesh, or wherever. That means one thing. It means extremely cheap labour is going into vehicles made in those countries that are then going to qualify for tariff-free entry into Canada. That means it is going to damage the Canadian auto sector.
I would like my hon. colleague to comment on whether she thinks that the Liberals' rules of origin on auto are going to help or hurt Canadian auto manufacturers.
Tracey Ramsey: Mr. Speaker, this is where we really have to look into the actual pieces of this agreement and how it will work. 
Right now we are in the middle of negotiating rules of origin in NAFTA and in the CPTPP we could potentially be signing ourselves on to rules that would allow better access, less Canadian content from CPTPP countries than we are going to accept from NAFTA, our largest trading partner. This is mind-boggling. I would point out to Liberals and Conservatives who sit in auto ridings, such as the member for Whitby opposite, these jobs are under direct threat. Losing tens of thousands of auto sector jobs will decimate communities across our country. The labour provisions in CPTPP are so extremely weak. 
The side letters would do nothing. As I mentioned earlier, side letters have no enforceability, no impact whatsoever on the actual trade agreement. When we are pushing for better in NAFTA with arguably the biggest player on the planet, the United States and Donald Trump, in the most difficult negotiations that we face, why are we agreeing to these extremely weak provisions with countries where we have minimal trade? It makes no sense. 
I want to point to CETA, which has been mentioned in the House several times today. We find ourselves a year after signing CETA with less trade going from Canada to CETA countries than we did one year ago when we signed it. It is time for Canada to start having trade agreements that have positive benefits for its communities and for jobs for Canadians. This deal would do the opposite of that.
We should not be signing this deal at this point in time.
PrivilegeMs. Leona Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I rise on a point of personal privilege. 
When I became an officer in the Royal Canadian Air Force, I swore an oath to give my life to serve Queen and country, to serve and defend Canada and the values for which it stands. When I left the military, I hung up my uniform but I never unswore my oath, and now I serve Canadians by representing them as their member of Parliament.
I stand here today deeply concerned for the future of our country. After three years of hope and hard work, I find myself asking: Am I doing everything I can to serve the citizens of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and my country? Canadians expect and deserve nothing less. The citizens of my riding and all Canadians need a government that delivers foundational change for the things that matter.
The world has changed dramatically in the last three years. We find ourselves in a time of unprecedented global instability. We are seeing fundamental shifts in the global economy while trade relationships, international agreements, and defence structures are under threat.
Canada faces a perfect storm of serious challenges at home and abroad. Here at home we see large amounts of capital investment leaving Canada while tax structures, federal infrastructure problems and politics prevent us from getting goods to market, deter companies from expanding and undermine our competitiveness. This is not a strong economy. 
Beyond our borders, our position remains vastly diminished. Our foreign policy is disconnected from our trade relationships and our ability to deliver on our defence commitments is undermined by politics.
On the world stage Canada has yet to rise to the occasion. The world has changed and Canada must change with it. We do not have the luxury of time. We must recognize that foreign policy, trade, defence and our economy all depend on each other and cannot be viewed separately. 
As a former air force officer, a global business consultant at IBM, an aircraft manufacturing manager at Bombardier and a small business owner, I understand the role and impact of government actions on Canada's economy.
To have a strong economy and a strong country we need strong federal leadership to rebuild our nation's foundations, tax reform, employment reform, a comprehensive foreign policy and a modernized military to reassure our allies and defend Canada's interests at home and abroad.
My attempts to raise my concerns with the government were met with silence. It is my duty to stand and be counted. Our country is at risk.
The government must be challenged openly and publicly, but for me to publicly criticize the government as a Liberal would undermine the government and, according to my code of conduct, would be dishonourable. After careful and deliberate consideration, I must withdraw from the government benches to take my seat among the ranks of my Conservative colleagues and join Her Majesty's loyal opposition, whose role it is to challenge and hold the government to account.
The leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and his team have a firm grasp of the urgent issues we face as Canadians and the resolve to confront them and it is my duty to align myself with those values. I thank my Liberal colleagues, but my oath is to country, not party, and my sacred obligation is to serve my constituents.
I ask the citizens of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill to continue to hold me to account as I serve and work with a new team focused on the challenges facing our nation and I say to all Canadians across this country not to accept the status quo; our country is at stake.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill for her comments.
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation ActMr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand here on the first day of the fall parliamentary session to express my gratitude for being appointed as the Parliamentary Secretary for International Trade Diversification; to commit to working with my colleagues on this side of the House and across all party lines, as well as with our colleagues in the Senate, to ensure the passing of the bill, Bill C-79; and to ensure I work with stakeholders and all Canadians for the benefit of all Canadians to grow our economy, create jobs and to ensure our values are protected.
It is a great pleasure to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-79, the implementing legislation for the comprehensive progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or CPTPP.
At a time when protectionism is on the rise, Canada's participation in the CPTPP sends a strong signal that Canada is open for business with the rest of the world, that our government is opening doors for our citizens and businesses to create more jobs and offer more choices, and that our government is committed to a fair, rules-based international trading system. Now, more than ever, it is essential for us to ensure that the trade agreements Canada implements respond not only to the needs of our commercial interests, but also bring tangible benefits to all Canadians. This agreement is about creating economic growth, high-paying jobs, more choices for Canadian consumers, and above all making sure all Canadians benefit, not just a few.
My hon. colleagues will know that the CPTPP represents an opportunity for Canada. Implementing and ratifying the CPTPP will help diversify Canada's trade and investment toward the Asia-Pacific region and solidify Canada's role in the economic landscape of Asia.
The CPTPP will serve as a cornerstone of our government's trade diversification strategy, connecting Canadian and investment to this dynamic and fast-growing region. In a region as deeply integrated and adaptable as Asia, the benefits of the CPTPP extend beyond enhanced market access to new and growing markets. Canadian exporters will also benefit from increased access to diverse and regionally integrated value chains with global reach.
Asia is important to Canada, and we see the CPTPP as a crucial step in our ambitious free trade agenda in the region. To this end, Canada has also engaged with China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, in exploratory discussions toward potential free trade agreement negotiations. We also have ongoing comprehensive economic partnership agreement negotiations with India.
Ambitious and high standard agreements like the CPTPP will help strengthen the rules-based international trading system and create a level playing field for Canadian businesses. It will also help us ensure the benefits of trade could be widely shared across all segments of society.
Diversifying Canada's free trade network will help ensure Canadian exporters could have preferential access to major markets beyond North America. The CPTPP will build on the achievements in our recent free trade agreements like the Canada-EU CETA once it entered into force. Canada will have preferential access to 51 different countries through 14 trade agreements, representing nearly 1.5 billion consumers and over 60% of the global economy.
The 11 CPTPP members represent a total of 495 million consumers and 13.5% of global GDP. Canada's export to our CPTPP partners totalled nearly $27 billion in 2017. The scope and ambition of the agreement means businesses of all sizes in all sectors and regions of our country will find new opportunities to do business in Asia.
The CPTPP is projected to boost Canada's GDP by $4.2 billion over the long term. That growth will be driven by increased exports of goods and services and increases in investments and international partnerships. This means more jobs and more prosperity for Canadians.
Implementing and swiftly ratifying the CPTPP will allow Canada to strengthen our economic ties with 10 key markets in the Asia-Pacific regions, including our current free trade agreement partners in Chile, Mexico and Peru, and seven new FTA partners in Australia, Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam.
For example, Canadian businesses will begin to enjoy the benefits of new preferential access to Japan, the world's third largest economy and our fourth largest trading partner. In 2017, bilateral merchandise trade between Canada and Japan reached $29.3 billion. Japan is also Canada's largest source of foreign direct investment from Asia.
The CPTPP will provide preferential access to Japan, eliminating or reducing tariffs on a number of key Canadian exports ranging from canola, beef, pork and salmon to lobster, lumber, steel and aluminum products. This will level the playing field for Canadian exporters with respect to competitors that already have preferential access to Japan, such as Australia. This will also help Canadian exporters gain a competitive advantage over exporters without preferential access, like the United States, and Canada does not currently have an FTA with Japan. 
Canadian service providers will also benefit from enhanced access and greater predictability and transparency in Japan and other markets. The CPTPP will create new opportunities for Canadian service providers in sectors such as professional, research and development, environmental and transportation services. 
Canada will also have new access to the rapidly-growing economies of Malaysia and Vietnam. Vietnam has been Canada's largest trading partner within the association of the southeast Asian nations since 2015 and has a forecasted GDP growth of over 6.3% in 2018. The CPTPP will provide preferential access to Vietnam for key Canadian exports in agriculture and seafood, including beef, pork, canola, ice wine and lobster, as well as in other sectors like forestry and industrial products. Financial service providers will also benefit from unprecedented access to the Vietnamese market.
More broadly speaking, Canadian companies will be able to invest with even more confidence in CPTPP markets, benefiting from greater predictability, transparency and protections under the agreement. Securing preferential access to CPTPP markets means that almost all Canadian products can be exported to our CPTPP partners without facing tariffs. Upon full implementation of the agreement, 95% of tariff lines of CPTPP parties will be duty free, covering 99% of Canada's current exports to CPTPP markets.
Preferential access also means a level playing field for Canadian products with respect to their competitors and will provide Canadian companies with a leg up on others that do not have the same level of access to CPTPP markets. This will translate into increased profits and market opportunities for Canadian businesses of all sizes in all sectors and in every part of our country.
As a result, implementing and ratifying the CPTPP will help create high-quality jobs and support Canadian farmers, fishers, miners, manufacturers, engineers, architects, investors and more. It means more opportunities for Canadian agriculture like beef, pork, wheat and canola. It means more opportunities for fish, seafood and forestry. It means more opportunity for Canada's diverse and innovative manufacturing sector, like aerospace, chemicals, cosmetics, industrial machinery, medical devices, metals and minerals, pharmaceuticals and glasses. It will also provide benefits for consumers, with lower prices and more choices at places like the grocery store.
The benefits of the CPTPP do not end at new market access. It also features a comprehensive set of rules that covers barriers beyond tariffs that Canadian businesses face when they trade and invest abroad. These include chapters that address technical barriers to trade and phytosanitary measures, as well as dedicated chapters covering cross-border trade in services, electronic commerce, temporary entry investment and government procurement.
In addition, the CPTPP includes provisions on state-owned enterprises and transparency in anti-corruption, which will help foster a fair and competitive business environment to help ensure that Canadian companies can trade and invest in CPTPP markets on an equal footing with their competitors.
In sum, the CPTPP is a robust trade agreement which rules will provide much-needed certainty for Canada as we look to diversify our trade and investment towards Asia.
I am proud to say that our government paid meticulous attention to the details to ensure that the interests of Canadian workers, businesses and culture are promoted. We made sure that we signed a good deal, not just any deal. The CPTPP also supports our government's commitment to ensuring that the benefits of trade are widely shared and can be enjoyed by Canadians across all regions and all segments of our country.
The CPTPP will help Canada promote labour rights and environmental protection as we enhance our trading relationship with our partners. The agreement's dedicated chapters on labour and environment ensure that CPTPP parties cannot lower their standards in these areas as a way to promote or attract trade and investment. In a first for Canada, both the labour and environment chapters are fully enforceable through the CPTPP dispute settlement mechanism, allowing us to ensure that our trading partners remain true to their commitments.
In other parts of the agreement covering areas like services, investment—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I know we are back after being away for a few weeks and there is great reason for colleagues to get reacquainted. However, I would like to remind the House that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification has the floor. He has been doing his best to power through that, but he has a couple more minutes left to go before we have to interrupt him for statements by members.
I would ask all hon. members to guard their conversations until we get to that point in the next part of our rubric today.
Mr. Omar Alghabra: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.
Our government is committed to helping small and medium-sized enterprises grow and create high-quality, middle-class jobs through trade and innovation. The CPTPP will help Canadian SMEs, which account for nearly 40% of our GDP and employ 10.7 million workers across the country, better tap into international markets and global supply chains.
The CPTPP is also Canada's first agreement with a dedicated chapter for small and medium-sized enterprises. The CPTPP includes commitments that promote the sharing of information online to help facilitate trade, as well as rules aimed at reducing costs and enhancing predictability and fairness so SMEs can gain access to CPTPP markets.
These are just some of the ways in which the CPTPP builds upon its ambitious market access outcomes for businesses so benefits of enhanced trade investment can be dispersed more broadly and support sustainable and inclusive economic development and job growth in Canada.
The CPTPP is the beginning of a new chapter in Canadian trade relations. As we seek new markets and diversify our trade, we can be excited about embarking on this new chapter together as we continue to open new markets and opportunities for Canadian businesses, workers, and consumers, and ensure that the benefits of trade can be felt in all parts of the country.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary will have up to five and a half minutes remaining for his remarks when the House next gets back to debate on the question, and then of course the usual 10 minutes for questions and comments. 
[For continuation of proceedings see Part B. ]